Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recommended Posts

I believe excessive wealth should not be allowed to be transferred. I am categorically against the emergence of dynastic wealth accumulation. . It's totally against the public interest to have millionaires with so much money, that they don't know what to do with it on the one hand while others cannot pay their mortgage, medical bills and support their children.

 

Anyhow... People should have to earn their way , not have it handed to them. Some might think that this is pure communism doctrine, but its really not at least its not what I meant. 

 

What I meant was:

Why da fak would some idiot who inherited so much wealth, and believe me I saw a lot of these fuckers, have 5x, 10x, 67x, 1098x better starting platform in life than I do, without a single droplet of sweat? Of course that the right to manage your wealth how ever you consider is undisputed. 

Its not that I am jealous and almost never been,but lets face it I think it unbelievably stupid to have an institution of inheritance. I would like to live in a world where every man or woman is completely responsible for his or her own life , which means that by my standards you cannot be an intelectual , you cannot be a succesful person, parent or professional if you achieved that with the help of your family pedigre, money or influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe excessive wealth should not be allowed to be transferred. I am categorically against the emergence of dynastic wealth accumulation. . It's totally against the public interest to have millionaires with so much money, that they don't know what to do with it on the one hand while others cannot pay their mortgage, medical bills and support their children.

 

Anyhow... People should have to earn their way , not have it handed to them. Some might think that this is pure communism doctrine, but its really not at least its not what I meant. 

 

What I meant was:

Why da fak would some idiot who inherited so much wealth, and believe me I saw a lot of these fuckers, have 5x, 10x, 67x, 1098x better starting platform in life than I do, without a single droplet of sweat? Of course that the right to manage your wealth how ever you consider is undisputed. 

Its not that I am jealous and almost never been,but lets face it I think it unbelievably stupid to have an institution of inheritance. I would like to live in a world where every man or woman is completely responsible for his or her own life , which means that by my standards you cannot be an intelectual , you cannot be a succesful person, parent or professional if you achieved that with the help of your family pedigre, money or influence.

So what do you propose for people who give a gift to their children?

 

How much would they have to give before this step would be enacted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe excessive wealth should not be allowed to be transferred.

 

On what basis? This belief is in opposition with self-ownership.

 

have 5x, 10x, 67x, 1098x better starting platform in life than I do

 

Let's say we live in a world without X where X is something people would want and assign value to. A VCR, a microwave, a smartphone, whatever it is. How are you going to profit off of this idea? You're going to go to people who have wealth, provide them with a business plan that will demonstrate that you can grow their money for them, and they will provide you with the startup capital you need.

 

To say "better starting platform in life than I do" is to aspire to be more like them. Which cannot happen without them. While maligning them. It's inconsistent and not at all rational.

 

Not to mention that a lot of charity comes from the wealthy. Your tainted view of the wealthy are through the lens of statism, which artificially preserves and grows wealth through coercive means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Large Fortunes are pretty awesome IMHO. I've spent hours getting lost in seeing where all the money goes.Take Rockefeller and Vanderbilt. These people mostly amass their fortunes by improving the lives of millions of people. They then spend billions (adjusted) creating wonderful castles of homes. Their descendents pretty much spend all the inheritance on more expensive houses, artwork, and high culture. I think in both cases the vast majority of the fortune was wasted in 3 generations. But us lowly people get oil, steel, and a taste of culture. And, no money was stolen in the process. How cool is that?I like the situation much more than the monuments to crime in other parts of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Money = Status

 

Someone with 50 cats is insane, someone with 50 billion dollars is cool beyond measure.

 

Status is a form of compensation, people try to cover up their shortcomings by seeming better than they actually are. You can have a small dick, but if you have long throbbing red Ferrari, all is fine.

 

There is no status to gain in having 50 cats, even though cats are real and money isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what do you propose for people who give a gift to their children?

 

How much would they have to give before this step would be enacted?

Who am I to judge how much would they have to give.  You are missing the point. How many times I ve heard ohhhh I am working 16h/day beacuse I want my children to have better future, I dont want them to be like me. I dont have time for myself, for my hobbies, travels, friends, what ever. I mean thats really noble, what these parents are doing, but then you get the countereffect children become in majority of cases lazy, stupid, without any respect for hard labour ,and hard earned money.

Everyone should be granted a decent platform to start with. Of course not everyone should be equal but lets say that the difference between the richest and the poorest should be approximately 20:1, and not like 100000000000000000000000000000:1 , its pretty easy to calculate what is decent and normal, and what is excessive and sick.

Large Fortunes are pretty awesome IMHO. I've spent hours getting lost in seeing where all the money goes.Take Rockefeller and Vanderbilt. These people mostly amass their fortunes by improving the lives of millions of people. They then spend billions (adjusted) creating wonderful castles of homes. Their descendents pretty much spend all the inheritance on more expensive houses, artwork, and high culture. I think in both cases the vast majority of the fortune was wasted in 3 generations. But us lowly people get oil, steel, and a taste of culture. And, no money was stolen in the process. How cool is that?I like the situation much more than the monuments to crime in other parts of the world.

Which monuments of crime you are talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone should be granted a decent platform to start with.

 

How? Do you take from those on a "higher platform" to give to the lower? Isn't this theft? Aren't you already making the case that those born into money tend to lack in personality? Wouldn't this make them the lower platform?

 

 

its pretty easy to calculate what is decent and normal, and what is excessive and sick.

 

 

Only if you ignore some of the feedback you've received in this thread and stuck to your predetermination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Money = Status

 

Someone with 50 cats is insane, someone with 50 billion dollars is cool beyond measure.

 

Status is a form of compensation, people try to cover up their shortcomings by seeming better than they actually are. You can have a small dick, but if you have long throbbing red Ferrari, all is fine.

 

There is no status to gain in having 50 cats, even though cats are real and money isn't.

So...? Let me ask you something do you need this freakin 50 billion dollars, no matter how small your penis is? How can you enjoy your enormous sum of money if you have so many diseases, poverty, unemployment, idiotism around you. For me a chase for status symbols brough us where we are now...think about it.

How? Do you take from those on a "higher platform" to give to the lower? Isn't this theft? Aren't you already making the case that those born into money tend to lack in personality? Wouldn't this make them the lower platform?

 

 
 

 

Only if you ignore some of the feedback you've received in this thread and stuck to your predetermination.

Do you need more than 25 square meters of your personal space? Do you need more than one car? Do you IPAD, IPHONE, Macbook? Do you really need that ... , and if you need it, why do you need it?

What is the public interest?

Thats an excellent question...peace, love, stability, real education, real medicine, happy, free and careless people all over the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question.

 

What is the public interest?

 

I know that I'm interested in many things, my wife is interested in totally different things. The guy I'm currently working with is similarly interested in different things. So how do we suddenly come to an agreement that we all have a public interest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me a chase for status symbols brough us where we are now...think about it.

 

In the negative context you're inferring, violence got us to where we are. What you're advocating is more violence.

 

Do you need more than 25 square meters of your personal space? Do you need more than one car? Do you IPAD, IPHONE, Macbook? Do you really need that ... , and if you need it, why do you need it?

 

 

If what I have I didn't use violence to acquire, what business is it of anybody else what I have and why I have it? I think this is what is meant by the recurring question of what the public interest is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On what basis? This belief is in opposition with self-ownership.

 

 

Let's say we live in a world without X where X is something people would want and assign value to. A VCR, a microwave, a smartphone, whatever it is. How are you going to profit off of this idea? You're going to go to people who have wealth, provide them with a business plan that will demonstrate that you can grow their money for them, and they will provide you with the startup capital you need.

 

To say "better starting platform in life than I do" is to aspire to be more like them. Which cannot happen without them. While maligning them. It's inconsistent and not at all rational.

 

Not to mention that a lot of charity comes from the wealthy. Your tainted view of the wealthy are through the lens of statism, which artificially preserves and grows wealth through coercive means.

Man..continue living in wonder land. I dont aspire to be like them at all I aspire to more humane , cooperative, spiritual world.

A lot of charity comes from the wealthy....hahhahahahahhaha its impossible that this is your argument. I stole everything you got ( there are exceptions ) , and now I am such an angel, a I am giving charity. The big difference between you and me is that I strive that everyone should be wealthy especially spiritually, and not wanting to maintain status fucking quo .

In the negative context you're inferring, violence got us to where we are. What you're advocating is more violence.

 

 

 

If what I have I didn't use violence to acquire, what business is it of anybody else what I have and why I have it? I think this is what is meant by the recurring question of what the public interest is.

No I am not, you just dont have enough gray mass power to understand that the better , more humane, more relaxed, more noble, more spiritual world is possible.  No one has the right to take anything from you, or from your parents, but if you strive only for materialistic goods and personal gain then I feel pity for you.

 

Public interest is something that I dont like to use, because it barely contains any logic. The only reason why I am using the word public interest is to show that each and every of us needs medicare, needs fresh  water without any chemicals in it, needs non-GMO food, needs protection, safety and stability, needs to have a home, a job, a profession. Its an interest that I believe we both share, and not just you and me but every person without any mental or social disorder.

I hope I made it clear for you, at least a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question.What is the public interest?I know that I'm interested in many things, my wife is interested in totally different things. The guy I'm currently working with is similarly interested in different things. So how do we suddenly come to an agreement that we all have a public interest?

I agree with you, Its true that  in reality, its very hard to define the public interest. You know, If I could build a bridge or a car, prevent an enemy air assuly or do a diffcult sugery on my heart then there is absolutely no need for public interest.

Stealing is wrong, no matter who does

Define stealing please.

 

Am I a thief if I steal something that has already been stolen from me long time ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Define stealing please.

 

Am I a thief if I steal something that has already been stolen from me long time ago?

 

: Taking another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of

  it.  Using violence, or the threat thereof, to accomplish the same.

 

 

Repossessing stolen property is fine, but one shouldn't project the sins of the father onto the son.  If a black man walks up to me and demands payment from me for my ancestors sins against his ancestors, I wouldn't know what to do but laugh.  I had nothing to do with slavery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be more ethical and effective to abolish the "stealing" that enables the accumulation of "excessive" wealth (thus leaving the "exceptions" who actually earned it through exceptional performance free to continue), rather than wait until it has been accumulated and abolish the transfer of it to one's children?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

: Taking another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of

  it.  Using violence, or the threat thereof, to accomplish the same.

 

 

Repossessing stolen property is fine, but one shouldn't project the sins of the father onto the son.  If a black man walks up to me and demands payment from me for my ancestors sins against his ancestors, I wouldn't know what to do but laugh.  I had nothing to do with slavery.

If you want to build a new healthy libertarian society from ground zero, then this is the thing that you absolutely have to do.

 

In international law, the crime prosecution has no time limits.

 

I dont want to offend anybody, but if your grand grand grand father was a white supremacist, who built up his wealth on slave labour , and passed it to you through I dont know 8 generations, them YES, there has to be the way for historical crime and unjustice to be settled.

I have a feeling that majority of you, who have commented on this topic, and I guess you call yourselves libertarians or anarchysts is concerned only with deeper pocket and thicker wallet . My beloved material wealth and ultra consumerism.

 

Big houses, expencive cars, blondes, small penises this is not libertarianism, this is sick, anti-human behaviour.

 

What kind of comment is this: Who are you to access is 25 sq/meters enough for someones private space or not. You know for me there are certain boundaries and common sense what is enough and what is excessive.

 

If you want to live alone in the empire state building,its ok you can do that, but for me you are a complete idiot.

Wouldn't it be more ethical and effective to abolish the "stealing" that enables the accumulation of "excessive" wealth (thus leaving the "exceptions" who actually earned it through exceptional performance free to continue), rather than wait until it has been accumulated and abolish the transfer of it to one's children?

I agree 100% with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you, Its true that in reality, its very hard to define the public interest. You know, If I could build a bridge or a car, prevent an enemy air assuly or do a diffcult sugery on my heart then there is absolutely no need for public interest.Define stealing please.Am I a thief if I steal something that has already been stolen from me long time ago?

Building cars is a matter of public interest? Private companies build bridges, governments simply decide where they go and due to ridiculous rules radically increase the price of their construction. The lack of government would not prevent a community from pooling resources to build themselves a bridge.Heart surgery is not public interest. It is the interest of the person who needs the surgery. I don't need it why do you need to drag me into the transaction?Similarly other things considered the public interest really are not. Roads, utilities etc are interests of the communities they service. Not the interests of every person within a region declared a country. My community's utilities are provided by a coop which is a not for profit agency owned by the people it services. It provides the community with good services, great jobs, reasonable prices, very quick upgrades to infrastructure and all profit is distributed back to the community. Coop's could easily replace many of the services government currently provides and in fact many things coops currently do are mistaken for government services. Even defense could be handled in such a manner. If the threat actually exists and you can make the case to convince people of the need it wouldn't be hard to fund it without theft through taxation. We already see this in action as many Americans are happy to see their tax dollars fund our military. Why would this change without a government and this nonsense public interest argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should not be held responsible for the crimes of my father. I especially should not be held responsible for the crimes of someone 8 generations back who I haven't even heard of.

 

It makes as much sense as me going out and killing someone and the state coming to arrest me.

 

You are very much missing the point as to why these inequalities of wealth exist and also that advocating the use of violence to solve perceived social problems is exactly why we are at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone should be granted a decent platform to start with.

 

Where do "platforms" come from?

 

...peace, love, stability, real education, real medicine, happy, free and careless people all over the place.

 

Where do those things come from, and who is responsible for providing those things to others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do "platforms" come from?

 

 

Where do those things come from, and who is responsible for providing those things to others?

,, life platform '' represents a world in which where is no homeless, where is no hunger, where is no banksters ( banking activity is not bad as such, but the existing model is softly spoken anti-common sense ) , where we all take care about nature and natural resources, where work is not slavery but joy and pleasure, where there is no such thing as school or public schooling as we know it, but more like ancient greek agoras ( life schools ) , where agresiveness is reduced to a minimum, where logic, sprituality, respect and cooperation rule ( and no its not utopia )

 

...peace, love, stability, real education, real medicine, happy, free and careless people all over the place.

This can be achieved easily between  free people with their free will in a government free society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Super.bueno, if you believe in the value of making it on your own and not taking any handouts why do you care if other people get them?  There's nothing stopping you from living that value, and it's irrelevant if someone else out there is born with a silver spoon.  They won't have the same sense of achievement you will and they might even end up blowing the money and ending up poorer than you in the end.  There's certainly ample evidence of fame and fortune wrecking people's lives. Legitimately rich people don't bother me at all, but for those who use the State to get rich I would share your contempt.

 

The other thing that doesn't add up is that you want people to pay for the sins of their fathers on one hand but also start with a theoretical 'clean slate' on the other.  If you want to hit the reset button for each new life, then you can't hold the child of an evil slave owner accountable for anything their parents did.

 

Totally eliminating the transfer of wealth between generations seems counter-productive.  It's a great way to build and progress forward.  If my dad owned a business and turned it over to me after he died am I supposed to burn it to the ground and start over?  What would be the point?  It is of course a huge challenge to give people something for nothing and still maintain the work ethic, but that challenge is not met by eliminating the gift itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we want to beat down the rich kids' privilege, we probably shouldn't wait until inheritance time.  Why wait until the parents die?  We should strip them before they even eat their first bite of caviar via silver spoon.  They could well get their PhD from Harvard Medical School long before dad croaks.

 

I sort of get the emotional tug of this idea (abolishing inheritance) looking from the children's point of view backwards (e.g., why do some kids get money) but not from the parents' POV down e.g., "I want to give my children the property I have."

 

That all before you get into property, theft, or the yucky idea of pumping all that cash through the government for them to handle - even if the government were completely moral and efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Super.bueno, if you believe in the value of making it on your own and not taking any handouts why do you care if other people get them?  There's nothing stopping you from living that value, and it's irrelevant if someone else out there is born with a silver spoon.  They won't have the same sense of achievement you will and they might even end up blowing the money and ending up poorer than you in the end.  There's certainly ample evidence of fame and fortune wrecking people's lives. Legitimately rich people don't bother me at all, but for those who use the State to get rich I would share your contempt.

 

The other thing that doesn't add up is that you want people to pay for the sins of their fathers on one hand but also start with a theoretical 'clean slate' on the other.  If you want to hit the reset button for each new life, then you can't hold the child of an evil slave owner accountable for anything their parents did.

 

Totally eliminating the transfer of wealth between generations seems counter-productive.  It's a great way to build and progress forward.  If my dad owned a business and turned it over to me after he died am I supposed to burn it to the ground and start over?  What would be the point?  It is of course a huge challenge to give people something for nothing and still maintain the work ethic, but that challenge is not met by eliminating the gift itself.

1. Super.bueno, if you believe in the value of making it on your own and not taking any handouts why do you care if other people get them?

 

Yes I strongly believe in that, and I ve proven more than once.

 

2. There's certainly ample evidence of fame and fortune wrecking people's lives. Legitimately rich people don't bother me at all, but for those who use the State to get rich I would share your contempt.

 

Absolutely right, I have no counter argument. Let me ask you something, how many rich or super rich made it by their own without help of the government ( in percentages please )

3.  If my dad owned a business and turned it over to me after he died am I supposed to burn it to the ground and start over? 

 

Absolutely not, desision is all yours. But what if your dad was a professional killer or a mobster?

If we want to beat down the rich kids' privilege, we probably shouldn't wait until inheritance time.  Why wait until the parents die?  We should strip them before they even eat their first bite of caviar via silver spoon.  They could well get their PhD from Harvard Medical School long before dad croaks.

 

I sort of get the emotional tug of this idea (abolishing inheritance) looking from the children's point of view backwards (e.g., why do some kids get money) but not from the parents' POV down e.g., "I want to give my children the property I have."

 

That all before you get into property, theft, or the yucky idea of pumping all that cash through the government for them to handle - even if the government were completely moral and efficient.

Pardon me, is this an irony or these are true arguments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I know, but I asked you why you care.  You didn't answer that part of it.

 

2. 93.4285% of Americans with a median income in excess of $10,050,248.28 dollars per fiscal year (from 1956-2011, adjusted for inflation) attributed less than 2.255% of their wealth to either direct government largess or waiver of taxes, fees or other federal and state renumeration.†

 

3. I would continue to provide the same services as my father did to the best of my ability.  But you know, if I found someone who wasn't playing fair by me, then certain things might end up broken, fights breaking out during general inspection and the like, things going missing.  It's just a part of the business you know.

 

 

† Unabridged Volume Of Official Facts and Figures (N. Lummox, et al) Volume 27, Chapter 8, Section 27A-1.2, page 347

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do "platforms" come from?

 

 

Where do those things come from, and who is responsible for providing those things to others?

Is it really that hard for you to understand that you are not the center of the universe? I know, what you think, why the fuck would I pay for making someone else happy? Is that right Mr Chapman? Mr Chapman I know that you are no kind of libertarian, you just want to be at the same fucking place as Mr Rockefeller or Mr Rothschild. You dont give a fuck, how people live all over the globe as long as you maintain your consumer standards. 25 sq/meters your personal space is nothing + 25 sq/m for your wife + 25 sq/m for your child+ 25 sq/m for your second child + bathroom+kitchen+garage space+hobby room + a decent job+ a decent car, thats the answer to your question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what the nice thing about 2+2=4 is? If somebody doesn't accept it, I don't have to verbally attack them. I don't have to threaten them with hellfire or a paramilitary platoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I know, but I asked you why you care.  You didn't answer that part of it.

 

2. 93.4285% of Americans with a median income in excess of $10,050,248.28 dollars per fiscal year (from 1956-2011, adjusted for inflation) attributed less than 2.255% of their wealth to either direct government largess or waiver of taxes, fees or other federal and state renumeration.†

 

3. I would continue to provide the same services as my father did to the best of my ability.  But you know, if I found someone who wasn't playing fair by me, then certain things might end up broken, fights breaking out during general inspection and the like, things going missing.  It's just a part of the business you know.

 

 

† Unabridged Volume Of Official Facts and Figures (N. Lummox, et al) Volume 27, Chapter 8, Section 27A-1.2, page 347

1. Because there is too much injustice, crime and poverty in this world, and I dont know ...somehow it just doesnt feel right.

2. No comment, everything is clear here :)

3. Its clear that you are a normal guy with a strong working ethic. I think you are right.

You know what the nice thing about 2+2=4 is? If somebody doesn't accept it, I don't have to verbally attack them. I don't have to threaten them with hellfire or a paramilitary platoon.

About 2+2, I dont know they told us its 4. It could be true though.

 

Its all good sunshine. If someone doesnt accept something, so I do dont have to accept his/hers either. This is why this is called a forum ( exchange of thoughts ).

1. Because there is too much injustice, crime and poverty in this world, and I dont know ...somehow it just doesnt feel right.

2. No comment, everything is clear here :)

3. Its clear that you are a normal guy with a strong working ethic. I think you are right.

About 2+2, I dont know they told us its 4. It could be true though.

 

Its all good sunshine. If someone doesnt accept something, so I do dont have to accept his/hers either. This is why this is called a forum ( exchange of thoughts ). Why paramilitary platoon, why not just military platoon or just platoon? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why this is called a forum ( exchange of thoughts ).

 

Are you exchanging thoughts or asserting truth claims, ignoring challenges to the contrary, and re-asserting those same truth claims? I'm seeing a lot of personal attacks for just being an exchange of thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you exchanging thoughts or asserting truth claims, ignoring challenges to the contrary, and re-asserting those same truth claims? I'm seeing a lot of personal attacks for just being an exchange of thoughts.

Its my style of discussion, take it or leave it.

Its my style of discussion, take it or leave it.

Nothing here is personal, think a bit before you write. We are all under pseudonyms here, it is what makes it safe, warm and free.

Building cars is a matter of public interest?Private companies build bridges, governments simply decide where they go and due to ridiculous rules radically increase the price of their construction. The lack of government would not prevent a community from pooling resources to build themselves a bridge.Heart surgery is not public interest. It is the interest of the person who needs the surgery. I don't need it why do you need to drag me into the transaction?Similarly other things considered the public interest really are not. Roads, utilities etc are interests of the communities they service. Not the interests of every person within a region declared a country. My community's utilities are provided by a coop which is a not for profit agency owned by the people it services. It provides the community with good services, great jobs, reasonable prices, very quick upgrades to infrastructure and all profit is distributed back to the community.Coop's could easily replace many of the services government currently provides and in fact many things coops currently do are mistaken for government services. Even defense could be handled in such a manner. If the threat actually exists and you can make the case to convince people of the need it wouldn't be hard to fund it without theft through taxation. We already see this in action as many Americans are happy to see their tax dollars fund our military. Why would this change without a government and this nonsense public interest argument?

You are so smart, you are my idol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont want to offend anybody, but if your grand grand grand father was a white supremacist, who built up his wealth on slave labour , and passed it to you through I dont know 8 generations, them YES, there has to be the way for historical crime and unjustice to be settled.

 

I have a feeling that majority of you, who have commented on this topic, and I guess you call yourselves libertarians or anarchysts is concerned only with deeper pocket and thicker wallet . My beloved material wealth and ultra consumerism.

 

Big houses, expencive cars, blondes, small penises this is not libertarianism, this is sick, anti-human behaviour.

 

What kind of comment is this: Who are you to access is 25 sq/meters enough for someones private space or not. You know for me there are certain boundaries and common sense what is enough and what is excessive.

 

If you want to live alone in the empire state building,its ok you can do that, but for me you are a complete idiot.

I agree 100% with this.

 

If the victim of the crime is dead, and the perpetrator of the crime is dead, how exactly can justice be done?  The victim can't be made whole; he's dead.  The perpetrator cannot be punished, nor rehabilitated; he's dead.  It seems to me that you're implying I should be punished for things my father did.  I think you should be punished for everything I've ever done.

 

I'm concerned only with respecting property rights and the non-aggression principal.  Do you not have a right to your property?  Do you not have a right to be free of violent aggression against you?

 

Big houses, expensive cars, etc. are manifestations of wealth.  I don't respect people because they are wealthy, but I don't think I have a right to steal from them either; just as they have no right to steal from me.  I have great respect for people who became fantastically wealthy by making the world a better place.  I have no such respect for people who became wealthy through fraud, coercion, or violence.

 

Personally, I'd prefer 25.5 square meters.  How much should I be punished for living on an extra half of a square meter?

 

I don't have any experience with having a small penis.  I can't comment on what that may or may not have to do with libertarianism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the victim of the crime is dead, and the perpetrator of the crime is dead, how exactly can justice be done?  The victim can't be made whole; he's dead.  The perpetrator cannot be punished, nor rehabilitated; he's dead.  It seems to me that you're implying I should be punished for things my father did.  I think you should be punished for everything I've ever done.

 

I'm concerned only with respecting property rights and the non-aggression principal.  Do you not have a right to your property?  Do you not have a right to be free of violent aggression against you?

 

Big houses, expensive cars, etc. are manifestations of wealth.  I don't respect people because they are wealthy, but I don't think I have a right to steal from them either; just as they have no right to steal from me.  I have great respect for people who became fantastically wealthy by making the world a better place.  I have no such respect for people who became wealthy through fraud, coercion, or violence.

 

Personally, I'd prefer 25.5 square meters.  How much should I be punished for living on an extra half of a square meter?

 

I don't have any experience with having a small penis.  I can't comment on what that may or may not have to do with libertarianism.

Tell this to Germans, they are still pating for the sins of their grandfathers

Tell this to Germans, they are still pating for the sins of their grandfathers

 

If the victim of the crime is dead, and the perpetrator of the crime is dead, how exactly can justice be done?  The victim can't be made whole; he's dead.  The perpetrator cannot be punished, nor rehabilitated; he's dead.  It seems to me that you're implying I should be punished for things my father did.  I think you should be punished for everything I've ever done.

 

I'm concerned only with respecting property rights and the non-aggression principal.  Do you not have a right to your property?  Do you not have a right to be free of violent aggression against you?

 

Big houses, expensive cars, etc. are manifestations of wealth.  I don't respect people because they are wealthy, but I don't think I have a right to steal from them either; just as they have no right to steal from me.  I have great respect for people who became fantastically wealthy by making the world a better place.  I have no such respect for people who became wealthy through fraud, coercion, or violence.

 

Personally, I'd prefer 25.5 square meters.  How much should I be punished for living on an extra half of a square meter?

 

I don't have any experience with having a small penis.  I can't comment on what that may or may not have to do with libertarianism.

You re joking right...well my  egocentric capitalist friend  let me put it this way...hmmm if I knew for example that your grandfather as German killed my grandfather as a Jew , then fled to Chile or Argentina where he had lived and hided  wealth stolen from Jewish families all around Europe.

If I know that you inherited indirectly that wealth from your nazi grandfather and you are living your idiotic life with 3 cars you know 10000000000000000 sq/m house, a helicopter, you name it and  I am living in a small apartment in Poland for example, barely surving and trembling whether I am going to pay my bils next month, I would find you, and absolutely nothing would save you.

You are not voluntarily going to give back what is mine, and what my ancestors had built and saved for centuries, and there is no court or official institution that would stand on my side they would all say the same thing like you just did.

Violence as you see, is unfortunately needed, because no man or woman with a crumb of dignity would stand this injustuce.

 

I ve told this to couple of peope here, and now I am telling to you now. Think before you write, dont just  repeat cheap phrases over and over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not voluntarily going to give back what is mine, and what my ancestors had built and saved for centuries...

 

And you know this to be true about me?

 

 

Let me get this straight:  In a thread you created titled "Should Inheritance be Abolished?," you are now claiming as rightfully yours, the property of your ancestors?  Is that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.